Thoughts on production, alienation, and ideology
So, the third Democratic debate was last night. But, really, let’s start with a confession. I think these debates are pointless. Lots of grandstanding and one-liners. As a result, I usually don’t watch. I follow some of the coverage and watch highlights.
Most of what I have to say is based on that.
Kirsten Gillibrand isn’t going to win the Democratic nomination in 2020. And she probably won’t even win a single delegate. Even former staffers are calling her campaign ‘obnoxious and performative’ and asking her to quit the race. As a result, my own guidelines might suggest I shouldn’t write a post about her campaign. But I’m going to write about it anyway. I’m going to do it because I think she’s centering her campaign on an idea no one else has ever taken up for a major national campaign. That idea is gender-identitarianism.
Let’s explore this in more depth.
The press covers Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as if they were the same. Or at least close enough to be part of the same ‘lane‘ or ‘wing‘ of the Democratic Party. This assumption forms the background to discussion of the issue of whether one or the other should drop out of the race. The idea seems to be that both of them want to move the US much further to the left. Maybe there are superficial differences. And maybe, as Jacobin writers argue, there are differences of political method and approach. But there’s an underlying closeness.
For the record, I think this assumption is false. I think the differences between the two candidates are rather large. But let’s roll with it for a bit. For purposes of this post, I’ll accept that Sanders and Warren are very similar. Where does that take us?
I think for a lot of people in the broader ‘progressive’ arena, it means they need to unite to prevent a more conservative candidate like Biden, Buttigieg, or Harris from winning the nomination. Typically Biden. Maybe one of them should drop out to help make this happen. Typically Sanders.
What should we make of this? Should Sanders drop out? Should Warren? Would it help take down Biden, the worst candidate?
Fahrenheit 11/9 was a bad movie. It didn’t get anywhere near my list of best anti-capitalist movies or my list of best recent movies. Despite its messiness, Michael Moore almost pulled it together at the end with a thoughtful monologue on the state of American politics in 2018. Almost. He interrupted the monologue for a disastrous non-sequitur: some loud-ass sirens and a message from Emma González on gun control. Whatever point Moore had been making was completely lost.
In its own way, this represents the role gun control plays in American politics. Compared to, say, health care, immigration, or climate change, it’s not an important issue. And hardly anyone bases their vote on it. However, it pops up at strange or suspicious times, such as when Hillary Clinton used it to pretend she’s politically to the left of Bernie Sanders.
But Democrats toss out big ideas on some of those other issues. Could they do the same for gun control? You know, like a ‘Green New Deal’ for gun control? German Lopez advocated for this idea in a recent Vox article. Let’s find out.
Democrats love talking about circular firing squads. It’s their favorite cudgel against the left. But when they find themselves empty-handed (or empty-headed), they use the term ‘purity politics’ instead.
What’s up with this? Who’s using the term ‘purity politics’? Who do they use it against? Why? What’s the function of this term?
Here are some potential answers.
© 2025 Base and Superstructure
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
